Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Angana's CAG should read this : Rajiv Gandhi told the officla ' you’re a heart patient , take rest'


CAG is a fake leftist Anti-Hindu organization ... READERS EXPOSE ANGANA CHATERJI and LEFTIST GANG

‘Rao told me to protect friends...Rajiv told me you’re a heart patient, take rest’

For the third time, then L-G Gavai has been made the fall guy


NEW DELHI, AUGUST 8 One man wasn’t surprised at all today, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi at the time of Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984. Barely days before the Nanavati Commission report was tabled in Parliament, in an extensive conversation with The Indian Express at his Nagpur residence, P G Gavai was prescient: ‘‘I know I will again be made a scapegoat to shield the higher-ups.’’

Gavai is the highest executive authority to have been blamed by the Nanavati Commission for lapses related to the riots that shook the city for a week after October 31 that year.

Gavai claimed the carnage was not on account of any errors on his part but rather because the Rajiv Gandhi Government at the Centre ‘‘deliberately delayed’’ calling in the Army when the mass killings began on November 1, 1984.

For Gavai, the Nanavati report completes a dubious hat trick. The retired Maharashtra cadre IAS officer said this was the third occasion he had been made the ‘‘fall guy’’.

The first time, he said, was when Rajiv Gandhi summoned him on November 2, 1984, and told him: ‘‘Gavaiji, you are a heart patient and you should now take rest.’’ Though he was advised to proceed on leave, Gavai chose to assume ‘‘moral responsibility’’ and resign the following day, after overseeing Indira Gandhi’s funeral.

Two years later, the Ranganath Misra Commission, while exonerating the Rajiv Gandhi Government — its home minister was P V Narasimha Rao, later to become premier himself — held Gavai should have ‘‘perhaps’’ assumed more than just moral blame and kept open ‘‘the extent of his responsibility’’.

Again in the Nanavati report, the blame for administrative lapses has not gone beyond Gavai, to the Union Home Ministry or even further up. ‘‘Gavai was the person responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Delhi,’’ the Nanavati report says baldly, ‘‘and, therefore, he cannot escape the responsibility for its failure.’’

But Gavai had another view. Though law and order of Delhi came directly under the jurisdiction of the Union Home Ministry, it was convenient for everybody, he alleged, to pin the blame on him. He ascribed this to two reasons: one, he was not a Congress politician, and, two, he belonged to the Scheduled Castes.

Gavai’s chief claim to innocence is that he had asked the then commissioner of Delhi Police, S C Tandon, to call in the Army right on the morning of November 1, when the violence had just begun. But for reasons beyond his control, the Army entered only two of the then six police districts of Delhi by the evening of November 1. It became effective in all districts as late as November 3. By then, hundreds of Sikhs had been slaughtered.

‘‘The sequence of events clearly tells a tale. Political authorities purposely wasted time in keeping with their nefarious design to teach Sikhs a lesson,’’ Gavai told The Indian Express. ‘‘(P V Narasimha) Rao was calling me up to only ask me to protect his friends.’’

When Rajiv Gandhi rebuked him at their November 2 meeting for not having acted swiftly in calling in the Army, Gavai, by his own admission, kept quiet. He saw no point in defending himself: ‘‘Who was I to delay the Army? Those who could have sent the Army had purposely delayed it. When I raised this with the then Army chief, he said these things (deployment) take time. The concern that was shown was all a drama.’’

Gavai regretted that even after 21 years, the Indian state was not prepared to ‘‘face up to the political complicity’’ in the massacre: ‘‘It’s a shame they are still engaged in that drama.’’

URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=75903


Blogger Naxal Watch said...

Politics of forgetting and forgiving
Harish Khare

A society ought to move beyond the politics of memory. Justice Nanavati
has given enough ammunition to those who want to keep the pot boiling.

TILL THE Gujarat Riots of 2002 the anti-Sikh Riots of 1984 were the most
horrible moment in the life of the Indian republic and constituted the total
collapse of the state order. Till the Gujarat riots, they had also remained the
cause celebre that defined and divided the political parties, forces, and
actors. For two decades, political correctness insisted on pronouncing the
Congress party and its leadership as being actively and collectively involved in
fanning the violence against the Sikhs.

The anti-Congress forces, especially the BJP and the Akali Dal, have used the
memory of the 1984 violence for sustaining the emotional support of their
coalition in and outside Punjab. The Congress, on the other hand, had been keen
to suggest that it could not be held responsible for the criminal acts of its
errant members. The Congress would not permit any dilution of the emotional and
political symbolism of Indira Gandhi's martyrdom, just because a few Congress
leaders' behaviour was suspect.

More than pressing the demand that "justice" be meted out, it became a battle
over the memory of the 1984 riots that dictated the political parties' stance
and various governments' response. Therefore it was only natural that when the
Vajpayee Government came to power it should have appointed a commission of
inquiry, both as a sop to its ally, the Akali Dal, and as a stratagem that "its"
very own Commission would finally provide the "smoking gun" to shoot the
Congress down.

After 20 years a polity should be able to decide on the culpability of this or
that individual or organisation. The Nanavati Commission was expected to
pronounce definitely the guilt or innocence of "the Congress leaders." It has
come as close as it could to giving a clean chit to the "Congress" as an

"It was suggested that Shri Rajiv Gandhi had told one of his officials that
Sikhs should be taught a lesson. The Commission finds no substance in that
allegation. The evidence in this behalf is very vague. ... There is absolutely
no evidence suggesting that Shri Rajiv Gandhi or any other high ranking Congress
(I) leader had suggested or organised attacks on Sikhs. Whatever acts were done,
were done by the local Congress(I) leaders and workers, and they appear to have
done so for personal reasons." (page 182)

Though for a liberal polity it is comforting to know that the country's chief
executive did not act irresponsibly, it does not look like the Nanavati
Commission report would end the politics of 1984. Apportioning of guilt and
blame is the staple diet of the political class. It is interesting that since
1984 so many of the personalities concerned have changed their political
affiliations. For instance, P.C. Alexander, who was a key functionary in the
Indira Gandhi establishment and the Rajiv Gandhi regime, is now a member of the
BJP. S.S. Ahluwalia, who was a Rajiv Gandhi ally in the post-Operation Bluestar
"management" of the sullen Sikh clergy and was later a member of the "shouting
brigade in the Rajya Sabha, is now a BJP whip. Ram Vilas Paswan, who had accused
then Home Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao of indifference to the riots, is now part
of the Congress coalition. I.K. Gujral, who also attested against Narasimha Rao,
is closer to the Congress than to the BJP-Akali Dal co!
mbine. Yet the politics of memory would not permit them the luxury of forgetting
and forgiving.

A society is entitled to put an end to the politics of memory over any organised
violence. A whole generation has lived with the periodic reminders of the 1984
violence. Young reporters, for instance, who covered the violence in the city
are today senior editors in their news organisations; for them, the 1984
violence seemed particularly abhorring because till then they, like all
citizens, subscribed to the comforting assumption that the Indian state
consisted of a well-oiled efficient police force, a competent and caring
bureaucracy, and a wise and vigilant political leadership. All those assumptions
came apart in those three days of anti-Sikh violence in Delhi. But, since then,
the country has witnessed so many breakdowns that the 1984 violence no longer
looks a simple case of black and white, guilt and innocence of one set of

Collectively, a society ought to learn the right lessons from a major happening
like the 1984 violence, steel itself against future outbreaks in law and order,
examine and reform institutional procedures that come in the way of timely and
effective containment of mobs.

Above all, a society ought to move beyond the politics of memory. Justice
Nanavati has failed civil society. Rather than firmly close the book, he has
given enough ammunition to those who want to keep the pot boiling. For its part,
the Congress has expiated its guilt by elevating a Sikh to the high office of
Prime Minister of India.

10:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home